Harris v. Babbitt & Johnson PA et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
LaTrina Harris,
Plaintiff,
v.
Babbitt & Johnson PA, et al.,
Defendants.
No. CV-25-03853-PHX-KML
ORDER
In early October 2025, plaintiff LaTrina Harris sent directly to a judge’s chambers
a document titled “Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Compel.” (Doc. 1.) The
Clerk’s Office was instructed to construe that document as a complaint and opened this
case. One week later, Harris filed a “Motion to Compel and For Finding of Non-
Compliance.” (Doc. 5.) At the same time as that filing, Harris filed a “Notice of Non-
Compliance” explaining her submissions were “for filing in the . . . Multi-District
Litigation before the Honorable Judge David G. Campbell.” (Doc. 6 at 1.) Harris requested
the Clerk of Court file her notice “in the official docket for MDL No. 2641,” but the notice
was filed in this current case instead of the MDL. (Doc. 6 at 1.) Finally, on November 18,
2025, Harris filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 9.) That application
is granted but the complaint is dismissed.
Based on her filings in the present case and a review of court records, Harris was
the named plaintiff in a case filed in 2016. CV-16-261-PHX-DGC. In that case, Harris was
represented by the law firm of Babbitt & Johnson, P.A. CV-16-261-PHX-DGC, Doc. 1 at
Case 2:25-cv-03853-KML Document 10 Filed 12/02/25 Page 1 of 4

- 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4. Harris’s case became a member case of the MDL that was being handled by Judge
Campbell. On January 13, 2020, Judge Campbell granted a stipulation dismissing Harris’s
case (along with many others). CV-16-261-PHX-DGC, Doc. 3. It appears the present case
stems from Harris’s dissatisfaction with the amount she received in connection with
settling her prior case.
In the document that was filed as a complaint, Harris alleges she has “repeatedly
requested, but has not received, an itemized breakdown gross settlement allocation,
deductions for fees and expenses, and net recovery.” (Doc. 1 at 1.) Harris alleges a law
firm known as Freese & Goss was impermissibly identified as co-counsel on the
“settlement statements” she received. (Doc. 1 at 2.) And Harris alleges her “total points
were arbitrarily reduced, depriving her of additional compensation she was entitled to.”
(Doc. 1 at 2.) Finally, a third firm known as Matthews & Associates is referenced but only
in connection with Harris alleging that firm told her she “was not entitled to an itemization
of expenses.” (Doc. 1 at 2.) Based on these events, Harris requests the court “grant the
Motion to Compel and order” defendants explain how her settlement amount was
calculated. (Doc. 1 at 2-3.) The document that was filed as Harris’s complaint likely does
not establish federal jurisdiction and, even if jurisdiction exists, Harris has not stated a
claim for relief.
Beginning with jurisdiction, Harris has not established the named defendants are
citizens of different states than her and more than $75,000 is in controversy. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332. Therefore, diversity jurisdiction does not exist. Nor does the complaint clearly state
any claim “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 1331. The closest it comes is alleging a “HIPAA Violation,” but “HIPAA itself provides
no private right of action.” Garmon v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, 828 F.3d 837, 847 (9th Cir.
2016) (simplified). Harris’s passing reference to HIPAA likely is not sufficient to invoke
federal jurisdiction but, even assuming jurisdiction exists, the complaint does not state any
claim for relief.
A complaint must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
Case 2:25-cv-03853-KML Document 10 Filed 12/02/25 Page 2 of 4

- 3 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
[plaintiff] is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Although Rule 8 does not demand
detailed factual allegations, “it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-
unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
“Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory
statements, do not suffice.” Id.; Mann v. City of Tucson, Dep’t of Police, 782 F.2d 790, 793
(9th Cir. 1986) (“wholly vague and conclusory allegations are not sufficient” to state a
plausible claim for relief). To the extent Harris is attempting to sue individuals or law firms
for the handling of her settlement, she does not provide sufficient factual allegations
explaining what each defendant did. Harris’s complaint contains only conclusory
statements that fall well short of identifying “who is being sued, for what relief, and on
what theory, with enough detail to guide discovery.” McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172,
1177 (9th Cir. 1996). The complaint is dismissed.
Harris is not granted leave to amend because she would not be able to establish the
existence of federal jurisdiction for a separate lawsuit. Although not clear, Harris appears
to be complaining that the defendant law firms mishandled approximately twenty thousand
dollars. If that is the amount Harris is seeking to recover, she cannot proceed in federal
court under diversity jurisdiction. And there is no obvious basis for federal question
jurisdiction based on an attorneys’ fees dispute between Harris and the law firms she
names.
Leave to amend in the current case would be futile but Harris may be able to file a
request for relief in the MDL case. Although that case is closed, it is possible Judge
Campbell would have jurisdiction to resolve a dispute between Harris and her counsel if
he chose to exercise his discretion in that manner. If Harris wishes to file something in the
MDL, she must send the appropriate documents to:
United States District Court District of Arizona - Phoenix
Division
Sandra Day O’Connor U.S. Courthouse, Suite 130
401 West Washington Street, SPC 1
Phoenix, AZ 85003-2118
Those documents must reference the MDL case number of 15-2641-PHX-DGC. Harris
Case 2:25-cv-03853-KML Document 10 Filed 12/02/25 Page 3 of 4

- 4 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
must not send any documents directly to a judge’s chambers and any future correspondence
sent directly to a judge’s chambers may be discarded without any action.
Finally, the document titled “Motion to Compel and For Finding of Non-
Compliance” seeks an order requiring “Matthews & Associates and Babbit & Johnson,
P.A. to produce [Harris’s] complete client file and settlement-related documentation.”
(Doc. 5 at 1.) Harris has not stated any claims for relief, so there is no basis for the court to
order the relief Harris seeks. See Pac. Radiation Oncology, LLC v. Queen’s Med. Ctr., 810
F.3d 631, 633 (9th Cir. 2015) (“When a plaintiff seeks injunctive relief based on claims
not pled in the complaint, the court does not have the authority to issue an injunction.”).
IT IS ORDERED the Application (Doc. 9) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Motion to Compel (Doc. 5) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT
LEAVE TO AMEND. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter a judgment of dismissal
without prejudice and close this case.
Dated this 2nd day of December, 2025.
Case 2:25-cv-03853-KML Document 10 Filed 12/02/25 Page 4 of 4